Is there such thing as relativistic angular velocity?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of relativistic angular velocity, exploring its implications and mathematical formulations. Participants examine the dimensional correctness of proposed equations and consider the relationship between angular velocity and relativistic effects, particularly in the context of angular momentum.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose expressions for the gamma factor in terms of angular velocity, suggesting gamma = (1 - w^2 / c^2)^-1/2 and gamma = (1 - v^2 / r^2c^2)^-1/2.
  • Others argue that these expressions are dimensionally incorrect, noting that angular velocity and ordinary velocity have different units, which affects the validity of the proposed equations.
  • A participant suggests that the correct formulation for gamma in terms of angular velocity can be expressed as gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - w^2*r^2/c^2), emphasizing the need for a detailed calculation rather than guessing.
  • There is a mention of the implications of relativistic angular velocity on concepts such as electron spin, referencing external material for further exploration.
  • One participant questions whether there is a true relativistic angular velocity and speculates about the effects of high-speed spinning on an object's properties, such as weight and angular momentum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the correctness of the initial expressions for gamma and the existence of relativistic angular velocity. Multiple competing views remain on the implications and formulations related to angular velocity in a relativistic context.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the dimensional analysis of the proposed equations and the need for careful definitions of angular velocity and its relation to relativistic effects. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical correctness of the various formulations presented.

zeromodz
Messages
244
Reaction score
0
If so, wouldn't gamma would be like?

(1 - w^2 / c^2)^-1/2

or

(1 - v^2 / r^2c^2)^-1/2
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, you're better of doing a detailed calculation of it than to guess. Your expressions are not dimensionally correct.

Your first expression must be incorrect because c has units length/time, and w presumable has units 1/time since I'm guessing it is an angular velocity. So w^2/c^2 is not dimensionless as it should be since it is subtracted from the dimensionless quantity 1.

The same goes for the second expression, v^2/(r^2*c^2) is not dimensionless if v is an ordinary velocity of dimension length/time, and r is a length.

Consider a particle moving in a circle at radius r with a tangential velocity v. The gamma factor you'd get in your expressions would still be

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

But if you want you may express it in terms of an angular velocity w by defining w := v/r and then you get

gamma = 1/sqrt(1- w^2*r^2/c^2)

Or you could use some factors of Pi if you like in your definition of the angular velocity. They would then appear in gamma aswell.
 
Thnking about relativistic angular velocity can lead to some interesting conclusions e.g. about the nature of electron spin.

See for example http://panda.unm.edu/Courses/Finley/P495/TermPapers/relangmom.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
torquil said:
First of all, you're better of doing a detailed calculation of it than to guess. Your expressions are not dimensionally correct.

Your first expression must be incorrect because c has units length/time, and w presumable has units 1/time since I'm guessing it is an angular velocity. So w^2/c^2 is not dimensionless as it should be since it is subtracted from the dimensionless quantity 1.

The same goes for the second expression, v^2/(r^2*c^2) is not dimensionless if v is an ordinary velocity of dimension length/time, and r is a length.

Consider a particle moving in a circle at radius r with a tangential velocity v. The gamma factor you'd get in your expressions would still be

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

But if you want you may express it in terms of an angular velocity w by defining w := v/r and then you get

gamma = 1/sqrt(1- w^2*r^2/c^2)

Or you could use some factors of Pi if you like in your definition of the angular velocity. They would then appear in gamma aswell.

So that means
gamma = 1/sqrt(1- w^2*r^2/c^2)

is the correct formula to use. Also, nobody answered that there really is relativistic angular velocity. Does something way more if it spins really really fast?
 
zeromodz said:
So that means
gamma = 1/sqrt(1- w^2*r^2/c^2)

is the correct formula to use. Also, nobody answered that there really is relativistic angular velocity. Does something way more if it spins really really fast?

I think your formula is correct. As for the question, 'does something weigh more if it spins fast', yes it would seem so. Think about angular momentum, not angular velocity ... it should involve the factor, gamma, somehow, though it may not be a simple formula. One must integrate over r to find total angular momentum, as a function of the object's angular velocity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K